(/05) DECEMBER 2005 DRAFT 1 - Food Standards Agency

FSIS (06/07) OCTOBER 2007 

SURVEY ON THE MEAT CONTENT OF CERTAIN MEAT 

PRODUCTS. 

This survey was conducted as part of the Agency’s food authenticity programme, which 

aims to gather information about the description of food in the UK. 

Summary 

• Meat products, whether prepacked or sold loose, are required to declare how much 

meat they contain by species i.e. % beef, % pork etc. The purpose of this survey was 

to check whether meat product manufacturers are calculating and declaring meat 

content correctly in response to changes in labelling legislation requirements. The 

survey also evaluated the suitability of the Agency’s recommended approach to 

calculating meat content. 

• Twenty six local authorities collected recipes, samples of raw materials and final 

products at the point of manufacture on 191 meat products covering sausages, 

burgers, pies and kebabs from 146 different manufacturers. 

• The meat ingredients were analysed for fat, total nitrogen and hydroxyproline by a 

consortium of five public analysts to determine their fat, protein and connective tissue 

content. A full compositional analysis was carried out on final products, where these 

had been collected. 

• The meat content was calculated using three separate methods. Two were recipe 

based calculations: the FSA method is based on the manufacturer’s visual lean (VL) 

estimation of meat ingredients by eye and reference to typical values of fat and 

connective tissue; whereas the CLITRAVI (Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing 

Industry in Europe) method is based on analytical values of fat and connective tissue 

in the meat ingredients. The third method (Stubbs and More calculation), which is 

limited to single species products, is based on analysing the meat product for nitrogen 

and fat and using agreed nitrogen factors to calculate the meat content. 

1

• Despite a requirement for a meat content declaration since 1984, six (3%) out of the 

191 product descriptions examined did not give a quantitative meat declaration. A 

further four products (2%) quantified the meat content, but did not declare it in the 

correct format. 

• Overall the survey indicates that the manufacturers sampled are declaring their meat 

contents accurately. This was confirmed by comparing the manufacturer’s meat 

declaration to the meat content determined by the CLITRAVI and Stubbs and More 

calculations, taking into account the analytical tolerances. Declaring more meat than is 

actually present misleads consumers, but only 3% (using the CLITRAVI calculation) of 

the samples and 4% (using the Stubbs & More calculation) overdeclared the amount 

of meat. If the tolerance is increased to 10%, then only two (1%) products declared 

more meat than calculated using the CLITRAVI method. In 41% (CLITRAVI) or 40% 

(Stubbs and More) of the products, the manufacturer’s meat contents were 

underdeclared compared to the two respective calculations, which could be to the 

disadvantage to the manufacturer. 

• The results also showed that the FSA calculation of meat content accords reasonably 

well with the CLITRAVI calculation, which is the EU recommended method. Nearly 

70% of the samples, the FSA calculations were within 5% of the CLITRAVI 

calculations, and only one sample had a higher meat content by the FSA calculation 

than by the CLITRAVI calculation. 30% of the samples had a lower meat content by 

the FSA calculation than the CLITRAVI method, which can be attributed almost totally 

to underestimating the VL of the meat ingredients. 

• The Stubbs and More calculation, which is used by UK enforcement laboratories 

(public analysts), also agreed reasonably well with the CLITRAVI calculation. If a meat 

product is found to have a lower meat content using the Stubbs and More calculation 

than that declared by the manufacturer, then this could be regarded by public analysts 

as an adverse result. In three cases in this survey, the meat content declarations are 

lower by 10% or more using the Stubbs and More calculation, when this was not the 

case for the CLITRAVI method. If possible, meat content determination by the 

CLITRAVI method in-factory is therefore useful if adverse results have been based on 

the Stubbs and More calculation 

2

• In 57% of the products, the VL of the meat ingredients estimated by the manufacturer 

was at least 10% lower than the VL determined by fat analysis. The accuracy of the 

FSA calculation could therefore be improved if VL determination by manufacturers also 

improved. The Agency should investigate ways of helping small businesses achieve 

this. 

• Participating local authorities and the manufacturers have been provided with the 

results of this survey. Cases where there was no declaration or the meat content was 

overdeclared have been followed up by subsequent visits. The overdeclared meat 

contents have been subsequently revised. Many manufacturers were already aware 

that they were underdeclaring the meat content, and preferred to build in a margin of 

error given the variability of the meat ingredients. In general, the survey has shown that 

most manufacturers including small businesses are well aware of the change in 

labelling rules and are able to calculate meat contents in response to these changes. 

Background 

1. The Food Authenticity Programme supports the Agency’s objectives of promoting 

consumer choice through honest and informative labelling and reducing food fraud. As part 

of this work, the Agency undertakes surveys in partnership with local authorities to 

investigate problems of misdescription, fraud, and compliance with food standards 

legislation. 

2. The amount of meat in a meat product is an important piece of information for 

consumers in deciding which product to buy. Amendments to labelling rules have changed 

the way meat is declared and how the meat content is calculated. The Food Labelling 

Regulations 1996 as amended, define meat from different species (i.e. beef, pork etc.), 

and there are limits on the amount of fat and connective tissue, which has potentially 

complicated the calculation of the meat content. In response to these changes, the Agency 

developed guidance to assist businesses to understand the changes and calculate meat 

content. Because of the large number of meat products sold loose in UK supermarkets 

and butchers shops, there is also a requirement to inform consumers about the meat 

content of products sold loose, as well as for prepacked products. 

3

Objectives of survey 

3. This survey was commissioned to check the accuracy of meat content declarations 

of a range of meat products in compliance with the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 and 

Meat Products (England) Regulations 2003 and the corresponding Scotland, Wales and N. 

Ireland Regulations. It will examine how well manufacturers are coping with the 

calculations and changes in legislation, and will assist enforcement officers to identify 

problem areas of compliance and whether any changes are necessary in the Agency’s 

guidance. The results will indicate whether the FSA method to calculate meat content is 

still appropriate and accurate. 

Legislation 

4. The UK has had legislation since 1984 (1) requiring manufacturers to declare meat 

contents in prepacked meat products and those sold loose. Changes in labelling legislation 

now apply a quantitative ingredient declaration (2) (QUID) in food products. In order to 

ensure that the meat content is consistently calculated in all EU Member States, there is a 

generic definition of ‘meat’ (3) . This definition of ‘meat’ as an ingredient is restricted to 

skeletal muscle with certain limits for fat and connective tissue for the different species. 

The UK previously declared meat content in terms of “minimum meat content %”. Under 

QUID this has changed to require the declaration in the list of ingredients of how much of 

each species of meat (% beef, % pork, % lamb etc.) is used in the product as a 

percentage of the final product. The Meat Products (England) Regulations (MPR) 2003 

(and the corresponding Regulations in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland), which replace 

earlier legislation, also maintain a previous requirement for meat ingredient declarations in 

products sold loose. These changes have potentially made the calculation of ‘meat’ 

content more complicated for some products especially those with high levels of fat and 

connective tissue. 

5. The maximum fat and connective tissue contents permitted in meat as an ingredient 

are given in Table 1 below: 

Table 1 Limits on Fat and Connective Tissue in Meat (3) 

Species % Fat % Connective tissue of the 

total meat protein 

Pork 30 25 

Birds and rabbits 15 10 

All other red meats and mixtures 25 25 

4

Where a prepacked product has excess fat and/or connective tissue above the limits, this 

has to be declared (but not quantified) in the list of ingredients (e.g. pork fat, chicken skin). 

Sample Collection 

6. Twenty six local authorities (see Annex 1) from across the UK collected samples 

and information to a detailed sampling protocol developed by the Agency on 191 meat 

products from 146 different meat product manufacturers. Local authority enforcement 

officers were requested to take samples during their normal food standards inspections of 

meat product manufacturers between February and end of May 2006. The survey 

restricted the meat products collected to sausages, burgers, kebabs and pies, as those 

products are produced in both large and small businesses. Samples of the meat 

ingredients, finished products (when made from one species), recipes, VL contents and 

labelling or description information were collected. A breakdown of the products 

investigated is given in Table 2. 

Analytical methods 

7. Ingredients and products were sent to a consortium of five public analysts (Durham, 

Lancashire, Leicester, Staffordshire, West Yorkshire) for analysis according to an agreed 

protocol. Meat ingredients were analysed for fat, nitrogen and hydroxyproline using the 

methods listed in Table 3, to allow calculation of the fat, protein and collagen content. 

Connective tissue content is defined as the percentage of collagen in total meat protein. 

Hydroxyproline is the chemical marker for collagen, and the collagen content is defined as 

hydroxyproline x 8. Finished products were analysed for their meat content using all the 

methods of analysis detailed in Table 3. 

Table 2 Meat Products Sampled 

Product Type Number (%) 

Sausages 104 (55%) 

Burgers 56 (29% 

Kebabs 11 (6%) 

Pies 20 (10%) 

Total 191 (100%) 

5 

Burgers 

29% 

Kebabs 

6% 

Sausages Burgers Kebabs Pies 

Pies 

10% 

Sausages 

55%

Quality Assurance 

8. The public analyst laboratories taking part in the survey are all accredited by UKAS 

for the BS methods (or their equivalent) listed in Table 3. In addition, quality control checks 

on the analytical values were included by duplicating 1 in 10 samples, and using a canned 

meat reference material to check each batch of analyses. 

Table 3 Analytical Methods Used for Meat Ingredients and Meat Products 

Analyte Method Reference Principle 

Nitrogen BS 4401 Pt 2 or 

equivalent 

Kjeldahl 

Fat BS 4401 Pt 4 Acid Hydrolysis/Solvent Extraction 

Moisture BS 4401 Pt 3 or 

equivalent 

Oven Drying at 100°C 

Ash BS 4401 Pt 1 Incineration at 500°C 

Hydroxyproline BS 4401 Pt 11 Acid hydrolysis, oxidation, colorimetry 

Calculation of Meat Content 

9. The Agency issued Guidance Notes on the Labelling and Composition of Meat 

Products (4) ,and recommended two possible methods for manufacturers to calculate meat 

content declarations based on recipes and the mixing bowl. 

FSA Method 

10. The introduction of fat and connective tissue limits implies that these components 

need to be determined before the QUID meat content can be calculated. The FSA method 

was devised as a practical rather than analytical method for calculating the meat content. 

The calculation relies on the manufacturer’s estimation of the VL content of each meat 

ingredient by eye. The fat and connective tissue contents of the meat ingredients are taken 

from reference tables in the Guidance Notes based on their species, VL, and type of 

meat cuts. These values are used to calculate the total amount of fat and connective 

tissue for each meat species ingredient, based on the ingoing weight in the recipe, which 

are compared to the limits given in Table 1. If the fat and/or connective tissue is/are in 

excess, the meat ingredient content is adjusted down by allowing the fat and/or connective 

tissue only up to the permitted limits. The detail of the calculation is given in Annex 2. A 

meat content calculator spreadsheet is available on the Agency’s website (5) , which will 

calculate the QUID automatically on entering the recipe and type of meat ingredient. 

6

CLITRAVI (Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing Industry in Europe) Method 

11. The second calculation proposed is called the CLITRAVI method, after the 

European trade association that proposed it, and is the method recommended by the 

European Commission. This method requires that the fat and connective tissues contents 

of all the meat ingredients are determined analytically. It also uses the recipe information 

to calculate the meat content and any excess fat or connective tissue. The only other 

substantial difference between the FSA and CLITRAVI calculations is that a conversion 

factor for collagen to connective tissue of 4.625 (37÷8) is used to calculate any excess 

connective tissue. Details of the CLITRAVI calculation can be found in Annex 3. 

Visual lean 

12. As the estimation of VL content is central to the FSA calculation, the survey 

included a check on how well manufacturers are carrying out this estimation by comparing 

it to the lean/fat content determined through analysis. Underestimation of VL content will 

result in a reduced meat content using the FSA calculation. Annex 6 identifies both the 

estimated and actual VL for each meat product. VL is calculated as follows, which takes 

into account a further 10% “hidden” fat in the meat tissues: 

Total fat % = (100 - % estimated VL) + 0.1 x % estimated VL; and 

Actual VL % = (100 – analytical fat content) ÷ 0.9 

Stubbs and More Calculation using Nitrogen Factors 

13. This method is a standard approach to measure the meat content of a meat 

product, and is based on determining the nitrogen content of the product as a marker for 

meat content. Nitrogen factors for all the main meat species and cuts have been 

determined in previous studies (see Annex 4). The meat based nitrogen is determined by 

subtracting any non-meat nitrogen (usually rusk or soya) from the total nitrogen of the 

product. The fat free meat is calculated using the nitrogen factor, and then the fat is added 

to give the total meat content. This calculation has been revised to take into account the 

fat and connective tissue limits applied to meat ingredients. As nitrogen factors are specific 

for each species and even each cut, this calculation can only effectively be used in single 

species meat products. The details of the calculation can be found in Annex 4. 

Uncertainty 

14. As with all analytical determinations, there is an experimental uncertainty which has 

to be taken into account when calculating meat content by the CLITRAVI and Stubbs and 

7

More calculations. This is outlined in Annex 5, and for meat contents up to 90%, the 

uncertainty for the CLITRAVI method (determining fat, nitrogen and hydroxyproline) has 

been calculated as 6% meat content. The Stubbs and More calculation involves the 

analytical determinations of moisture, ash, fat, nitrogen, and hydroxyproline content, as 

well as the uncertainty around the use of an average nitrogen factor. The uncertainty using 

the Stubbs and More method has been calculated as 7% meat content for meat contents 

up to 90%. 

Results 

15. Six (3%) of the 191 products sampled by enforcement officers did not provide the 

quantitative ingredient declaration. As meat content declarations have been required in 

sausages, burgers, pies etc since 1984, it was a little surprising this number of the 

products examined in the survey failed to declare the meat content. A further four products 

(2%) quantified the meat, but did not declare it in the correct format. Most of these gave a 

‘total meat %’ rather than identifying species separately e.g. pork %, beef %. These 

problems would have been raised and discussed by the enforcement officers with the 

manufacturer when samples were taken or at a subsequent visit. 

16. The meat contents of all products were calculated by the three methods (Stubbs 

and More for single species products), and the results of these calculations along with the 

QUID (declaration) given by the manufacturer, the estimated VL and the actual VL of the 

meat ingredients are given in Annex 6. 

17. In order to determine how well manufacturers are coping with meat content 

declarations and Agency Guidance Notes, two questions are posed: 

(a) How accurate are the manufacturers’ meat contents? 

(b) Is the FSA method still appropriate to calculate meat contents? 

How accurate are the manufacturers’ meat contents? 

18. In order to answer question (a), the declaration from the CLITRAVI calculation and 

the Stubbs and More calculations, which are based on either the analysis of the 

ingredients or the final products, were compared to the manufacturers’ meat content 

declarations (QUID). The results of this comparison are given in Table 4. Overdeclaration 

of meat content i.e. declaring more meat than is actually present in the product is 

undesirable because it misleads the consumer into believing there is more meat than there 

8

actually is. Comparing with the meat contents derived from the CLITRAVI and Stubbs and 

More calculation, 3% (CLITRAVI) and 4% (Stubbs and More) of quantitative ingredient 

declarations in the sampled products were overdeclared. 

Table 4 Comparison of the CLITRAVI and Stubbs and More Calculation of Meat 

Contents with the Manufacturers’ QUID 

CLITRAVI 

Number and (% of samples) 

Stubbs and More 


QUID within tolerance* 102 (53%) 82 (43%) 

QUID underdeclared 78 (41%) 76 (40%) 

QUID overdeclared 

5 (3%) 

{2 sausages, 2 kebabs, 1 pie} 

8 (4%) 

{6 sausages,1 kebab,1 pie} 

No QUID given 

Not analysed (mixed 

6 (3%) 

6 (3%) 

species) --- 19 (10%) 

*CLITRAVI - analytical tolerance of 6% for 90% meat content 

* Stubbs and More - analytical tolerance of 7% for 90% meat content 

Suitability of the FSA method. 

19. To answer question (b), the declarations calculated by the FSA method were 

compared with the meat contents calculated by the CLITRAVI method. As a comparison 

the Stubbs and More meat contents were also compared with the CLITRAVI method (see 

Table 5). In addition, as the estimation of VL is such an important part of the FSA 

calculation, an indication whether the VL has been estimated correctly has also been 

presented in Table 5. Comparing the FSA and CLITRAVI calculations of meat content and 

using a 5% tolerance, in almost 70% of the samples the two meat contents were in 

agreement, but in 30% of the samples the FSA calculation gave a lower meat content. 

Only one sample gave a higher meat content using the FSA calculation than CLITRAVI. 

20. The results in Annex 6 were sent to both the manufacturers whose products had 

been sampled, and the local authorities who had collected the samples. Although written 

comments were requested, none were received. However a number of manufacturers and 

local authorities telephoned the Agency to discuss their results. Local authority 

enforcement officers were also asked whether any action had been taken as a result of the 

findings. 

9

Table 5 Comparison of Meat Declarations Calculated by the FSA Method and 

Stubbs and More with the CLITRAVI Method 

FSA Comparison with CLITRAVI 

Declarations within 5% 

Lower meat content by > 5% 

Higher meat content by >5% 

Stubbs &More Comparison with 

CLITRAVI 

Declarations within 5% 

Lower meat content by >5% 

Higher meat content by >5% 

VL 


VL underestimated 61 

VL correct 61 

Number and (% of 

samples) 

VL not provided 11 133 (69.5%) 

VL underestimated 48 

VL correct 9 57(30%) 

VL correct 1 

--- 

--- 

--- 

1 (0.5%) 

{pork sausage} 

125 (65%) 

13 (7%) 

34 (18%) 

Not analysed (mixed species) --- 19 (10%) 

Discussion 

Accuracy of the meat declaration 

21. Where manufacturers follow their recipes closely, the CLITRAVI calculation should 

be the most accurate method for the calculation of meat content. A comparison of the 

CLITRAVI method with manufacturers’ declarations in Table 4 shows that when taking into 

account the analytical tolerance only five (3%) samples were overdeclaring the meat 

content. Seventy eight (41%) of the samples were underdeclaring the meat content, which 

could disadvantage the manufacturer, but is not normally regarded as misleading the 

consumer. 

22. The Stubbs and More calculations of meat content give similar results when 

compared with the manufacturers’ QUID in Table 4. Only eight (4%) of samples were 

overdeclaring the meat content by 7% or more in comparison with the Stubbs and More 

determination, and 76 (40%) of samples were underdeclaring the QUID. 

Suitability of the FSA calculation to give a QUID 

10

23. In Table 5, when the FSA calculation is compared to the CLITRAVI calculation 

using a 5% tolerance, almost 70% of meat contents were in agreement. Given that the 

FSA calculation depends on visual estimation and typical fat and connective tissue tables, 

this is a good result. Only one sample gave a higher meat content compared to the 

CLITRAVI calculation. These survey results therefore confirm that the FSA method is a 

less onerous approach and continues to be a valid method for meat content calculation. 

24. In the remaining 57 (30%) of the samples where the FSA calculated meat content 

was lower the CLITRAVI meat content, 48 (25%) of these cases could be explained 

because the VL of the meat ingredients was underestimated. In many cases, fat levels 

were found to be nearly half of those estimated, which would bring them below the limits 

set in the definition of meat and increase the meat content. Some manufacturers have 

admitted that they are aware that they are underdeclaring the meat content to give a 

margin of error due to the variability of fat content in the meat. 

Visual Lean 

25. VL determination by eye can be a subjective measurement, and requires 

experience. Bulk supplies of meat are traded in different VL categories, and cutting plant 

operators are more experienced in VL determination. Until the labelling rules changed, 

smaller businesses did not need to determine VL of their meat ingredients so accurately. 

In this survey, in 109 (57%) of the products, the VL estimation of the main meat ingredient 

was underestimated by 10% or more. VL levels of 75-80VL for pork, and 80-85VL for beef 

or lamb are the limits at which the ingredients count 100% towards the meat content 

(assuming no excess connective tissue). An underestimation of the VL around these levels 

can make a significant difference to the meat content using the FSA method. Therefore 

assisting businesses (for example, providing colour photographs to aid comparison or 

more objective methods) will improve how the VL is determined and subsequently improve 

the accuracy of the FSA method. 

Comparison of CLITRAVI with Stubbs and More calculation 

26. The Stubbs and More calculation has a long standing use by public analysts to 

decide whether meat contents have been declared correctly. With the change in labelling 

rules, the use of nitrogen factors is in most cases only suitable for single species meat 

products. In this survey, 19 of the products were of mixed species. In Table 5, 65% of the 

meat contents calculated by the Stubbs and More method accord within 5% of the 

11

CLITRAVI calculation, which is a very positive result. Only 13 (7%) of the samples gave a 

lower calculated meat content when compared against the CLITRAVI method. There were 

18% of samples which gave higher meat content than CLITRAVI. This could be explained 

partly by the uncertainty of the analytical results and partly because the nitrogen factor 

applied may not have been appropriate to the raw materials used in the product. 

27. A potential problem could arise if the meat content given by the Stubbs and More 

was lower by at least 10% than the meat content declared by the manufacturer, yet the 

QUID was correct when calculated by the CLITRAVI method. Based solely on the Stubbs 

and More calculation, this would be regarded by public analysts as an adverse result. Of 

the eight samples giving an overdeclaration of meat content with Stubbs and More, only 3 

were also overdeclaring using the CLITRAVI method. The remaining five samples had a 

CLITRAVI meat content of 10% or less than that determined by the Stubbs and More 

calculation. This difference could arise if manufacturers were not following their recipes 

accurately, or if the appropriate nitrogen factors were not being used in the calculation. 

Given the discrepancy between the two calculations in the case of these five samples, it 

would be appropriate to carry out a further investigation and calculate the meat content 

using the in-factory CLITRAVI method as well as the Stubbs and More approach before 

deciding whether to take a prosecution. 

Conclusions 

28. Overall the meat product manufacturers sampled appear to be coping well with the 

change in requirements to declare meat content (QUID) in the light of the definition of meat 

in the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 as amended. 

• 3% of the products investigated gave no meat content declaration but 

manufacturers would have been required to provide this information either during 

the visit made by the enforcement officer or after receiving their results from the 

Agency. Similarly, the 2% of samples where the declarations were not in the correct 

format were also drawn to the attention of the manufacturers. 

• In checking the manufacturers’ declarations, 3% of the samples overdeclared the 

meat content according to the CLITRAVI method, and 4% using the Stubbs and 

More method. In terms of accuracy, 43% of the samples manufacturers had 

underdeclared the meat content when compared to the CLITRAVI calculation, but 

only 3 (2%) of the samples was the meat content overdeclared by more than 10%. 

Using the Stubbs and More determination, similar figures were obtained. 

12

• The FSA calculation of meat content accorded reasonably well with the CLITRAVI 

method, and would permit meat content calculation without requiring any analysis of 

meat ingredients. Improving VL determination would achieve more accurate results 

so that meat contents are not underdeclared. The Agency should investigate ways 

to help businesses achieve this. 

• The Stubbs and More method is limited to single species products, but it accords 

well with the CLITRAVI method based on the recipe. In some cases, high meat 

contents have been obtained, probably because more specific nitrogen factors 

should have been used. In eight cases, the determined meat content was lower by 

more than 7% than the declared meat content, however in only three of these cases 

the determined meat contents were also overdeclaring using the CLITRAVI method. 

Therefore, if it is possible any adverse results after checking meat content by the 

Stubbs and More method should follow-up with an in-factory CLITRAVI calculation. 

• In those cases where there was no declaration or the meat content was 

overdeclared have been followed up by subsequent visits. The overdeclared meat 

contents have been subsequently revised. The companies are also aware of the 

results of their own products. 

References 

(1). The Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984, SI 1984 No 1566 

(2) The Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulation 1998, SI 1988 No 1398 

(3). Commission Directive 2001/101/EC, OJ L310 of 28.11.01, p19 

(4) Food Standards Agency Guidance Notes of the Labelling and Composition of Meat 

Products, Sept 2003. weblink: 

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/meatguidance.pdf 

(5) The Meat Content Calculator Excel spreadsheet, FSA website 

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/spreadsheets/meatcontentcalcfeb04.xls 

Further information 

Mark Woolfe 

Enforcement Division 

Room 425B, Aviation House 

125 Kingsway 

WC2B 6NH 

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7276 8151 

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7276 8463 Email: mark.woolfe@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk 

13

LOCAL AUTHORITIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE SURVEY ANNEX 1 

Aberdeen City Council 

Aberdeenshire County Council 

Birmingham City Council 

Blackpool Council 

Brent – London Borough 

Buckinghamshire County Council 

Cumbria County Council 

Durham County Council 

Flintshire County Council 

Gloucester County Council 

Leicester City Council 

Lincolnshire County Council 

Milton Keynes Council 

Norfolk County Council 

Northern Ireland Regional Group Consortium 

Pembrokeshire County Council 

Powys County Council 

Rhondda Council 

Sheffield City Council 

Staffordshire County Council 

Stockton on Tees Council 

Suffolk County Council 

Surrey County Council 

Walsall Metropolitan Borough 

West Lothian Council 

West Yorkshire County Council 

14

FSA METHOD TOP CALCULATE MEAT CONTENT ANNEX 2 

Section 1 – Complete Ingredients Table 

The purpose of this section is to work out the overall levels of fat and connective tissue in 

your ingredients as a whole. 

Step 1 – Write in all the ingredients from the same species in Column A. Use the table of typical values (at 

Annex C in Guidance Notes) to write in the figure for fat, collagen and protein for each ingredient (these are 

percentages). 

Step 2 – For each ingredient, multiply the weight of the ingredient (column B) by the figures for fat (column 

C), collagen (column D), and protein (column E) in turn. Write the answers in the corresponding columns on 

the right of the table i.e., column F (fat), column G (collagen) and column H (protein). 

Step 3 – Add up the totals of columns F, G and H, and enter the totals in the respective boxes for total fat, 

total collagen and total protein. 

Step 4 – Divide the total fat (column F) by the total weight of the ingredients (column B) Multiply this by 100. 

This is the overall percentage of fat in your ingredients; enter it in the relevant box at the bottom right. 

Where this is above the fat limit for the species in question – you have “excess fat”. (Although bear in mind 

you may need to re-calculate this later). 

Step 5 – Divide the total collagen (column G) by the total protein (column H). Multiply this by 100. This is 

the overall connective tissue percentage of your ingredients; enter it in the relevant box at the bottom right. 

Where this is above the connective tissue limit for the species in question – you have “excess connective 

tissue”. 

Example: Pork and Beef Sausage (pork ingredients). 

(The full calculation for this example is given at Annex D, example 2). 

Column A B C D E F G H 

Ingredient Weight fat collagen protein fat collagen protein 

data from the table at B x C B x D B x E 

Annex C 

100 100 100 

Lean trimmings 80vl 100 27.4 3.40 17.0 27.4 3.40 17.0 

Lean with Fat 50vl 100 53.6 1.90 11.5 53.6 1.90 11.5 

Rind with fat uncooked 35 35.0 14.20 22.0 12.3 4.97 7.7 

Back fat 45 78.6 3.68 5.1 35.6 1.66 2.3 

Total 280 128.9 11.93 38.5 

Total fat percentage = total fat, divided by the total weight, multiplied by 100 ⇒ 46.04 

Total CT percentage = total collagen, divided by total protein, multiplied by 100 ⇒ 30.99 

15

Section 2 – Correct for Excess Connective Tissue 

The purpose of this step is to work out how much of your connective tissue may be 

counted towards the meat content – and how much must be deducted from your total. 

1. Calculate fat-free meat 

total meat X 

percentage of fat 

100 

total meat – total weight of fat = fat-free meat 

= total weight of fat 

3. Calculate fat-free, connective tissue-free meat 

total CT percentage X 

fat-free meat 

100 

= total connective tissue 

fat-free meat – total connective tissue = fat-free, CT-free meat 

4. Include allowed connective tissue 

Fat-free, CT-free meat X 

100 

(100 – limit for CT) 

= fat-free meat with CT allowance 

You now need to re-calculate your overall fat percentage, as this will have changed 

because of the correction you have made for excess CT. 

5. Re-calculate overall fat percentage 

weight of fat 

weight of fat + fat-free meat with CT allowance 

X 100 = overall fat percentage 

If your product is to be labelled with a list of ingredients, you now need to calculate 

the weight of excess connective tissue in order that it can be declared in the correct 

position in the list. 

6. Calculate weight of excess connective tissue (for purposes of ingredient listing) 

fat-free meat – fat-free meat with CT allowance = excess CT (kg) 

16

Section 3 – Add Fat Back in (i.e., where there is no excess fat) 

The purpose of this step is simply to include your existing fat in your final meat content. 

1. Add back in fat (only where there is no excess fat) 

fat-free meat with CT allowance + total fat = final meat content 

Section 4 – Correct for Excess Fat 

The purpose of this step is to work out how much of your fat may be counted towards your 

meat content, and how much must be deducted from your total. 

1. Include allowed fat 

Fat-free meat with CT allowance X 

1. Calculate fat-free meat 

total meat X 

percentage of fat 

100 

100 

total meat – total weight of fat = fat-free meat 

2. Include allowed fat 

Fat-free meat X 

100 

(100 – limit for fat) 

(100 – limit for fat) 

= total weight of fat 

= final meat content 

17 

= final meat content

If your product is to be labelled with a list of ingredients, you now need to calculate 

the weight of excess fat in order that it can be declared in the correct position in the 

list. 

3. Calculate weight of excess fat (for purposes of ingredient listing) 

total fat – (final meat content– fat-free meat with CT allowance) = excess fat 

Section 5 – Calculate final meat content percentage 

The purpose of this step is to work out either a QUID declaration, or your compositional 

meat content, based on the "final meat content" you have calculated. 

To calculate the QUID declaration: 

1. Calculate QUID declaration 

final meat content 

total weight of final product 

X 100 = QUID declaration 

To calculate your “meat content” in order to ensure that the product meets the 

relevant compositional standards 

1. Calculate compositional meat content 

final meat content 

total weight of all ingredients 

X 100 = compositional meat content 

18

.THE CLITRAVI METHOD ANNEX 3 

This method requires the use of analytical data for the level of fat, meat protein and 

hydroxyproline/collagen present in the meat ingredients. This will require chemical 

analysis of representative samples of ingredients from the mixing bowl. 

1. Determining the fat and connective tissue content of the meat ingredients 

Connective Tissue Content 

Where the collagen and protein content are determined by analysis from the 

hydroxyproline content, the connective tissue is calculated from the collagen content by 

using a suitable conversion factor (normally 37÷8) as follows: 

Collagen = hydroxyproline x 8, 

Connective tissue % = Collagen x 37÷8 

Notes: 

1. The values for protein, collagen and fat in the formulae below relate to the percentage of protein, 

collagen or fat in the total meat. 

2. The chemical fat, hydroxyproline and protein nitrogen can be determined using ISO methods or 

equivalent. 

3. Step 3 below requires the use of a suitable conversion factor for the conversion of collagen into 

connective tissue. The generally accepted factor of 37÷8 is recommended. However, where the 

specific nature of the connective tissue is known, and all the collagen derives from that source, then 

other more specific conversion factors may be used. 

The Calculation 

1. Calculate allowed collagen content 

allowed collagen content (%) = 

2. Calculate excess collagen 

limit for CT (%) X (protein in meat (%) – collagen in meat (%) ) 

(100 – limit for CT) 

excess collagen (%) = collagen in meat (%) – allowed collagen content (%) 

If excess collagen (%) is ≤ 0, then there is no excess collagen or connective tissue; go to step 4. See 

also footnote on page 34. 

19

1. Convert excess collagen into excess connective tissue 

excess connective tissue (%) = excess collagen (%) X [conversion factor] 

2. Calculate allowed fat content 

• Where excess collagen > 0 

allowed fat content (%) = 

• 

Where excess collagen ≤ 0 

allowed fat content (%) = 

3. Calculate excess fat 

limit for fat (%) X (100 – excess CT – percentage of fat in total meat) 

(100 – limit for fat (%) ) 

limit for fat (%) X (100 – percentage of fat in total meat) 

(100 – limit for fat (%) ) 

excess fat (%) = percentage of fat in total meat – allowed fat content 

If excess fat (%) ≤ then there is no excess fat. See also footnote below. 

4. Calculate declarable meat 

declarable meat (%) = 100 – excess fat – excess connective tissue 

NB – values for “excess fat” or “excess connective tissue” should only be included in calculation 6, 

where there is actually an excess of fat or connective tissue (as appropriate) in the product. 

7. Calculate QUID declaration 

The ‘declarable meat’ represents the percentage of the total meat on which the QUID declaration may be 

based. 

QUID declaration (%) = declarable meat x 

total meat 

total weight of product 

20

STUBBS AND MORE CALCULATION USING NITROGEN FACTORS ANNEX 4 

STEP1 Calculate meat protein excluding contributions from non-meat nitrogenous sources: 

STEP2 

Meat Nitrogen (NM) = Total Nitrogen (NT) - non-meat Nitrogen (NNM) 

Meat Protein (PM) = 6.25 x NM 

Carbohydrate % (C) is normally determined by difference: 

Carbohydrate % (C) = 100 - (water% + fat% + protein% + ash%) 

(Where there is no information on non-meat nitrogen it is assumed that 

Non meat nitrogen = 0.02 x C. 

Where the non meat nitrogen is known from analysis of the ingredients this figure can be 

used) 

Calculate the collagen free meat protein: 

Collagen-free meat protein (PMCTFREE) = PM - Collagen (8 x %hydroxyproline) 

STEP3 Calculate the ratio between the collagen content and the meat protein content 

Connective Tissue% (CT%) = Collagen % x 100 

STEP4 Calculate the meat protein with the allowed collagen: 

a. If CT% < CTLIMIT % 

b. 

Where: CTLIMIT % = Limits for connective tissue provided by the EU Definition. 

Meat protein with allowed collagen (PM+CT) = PMCTFREE + collagen 

If CT% > CTLIMIT 

Meat protein with allowed collagen (PM+CT) = PMCTFREE x 100 

(100 – CTLIMIT) 

STEP5 Calculate excess collagen if CT% > CTLIMIT 

Excess collagen % = total Collagen – (PM+CT – PMCTFREE) 

STEP6 Calculate the fat free meat: 

Fat free meat % (FFM) = PM+CT x 100 

6.25 x Fat free Nitrogen Factor (Nff) 

PM 

21

STEP7 Calculate the meat content to include allowed fat: 

a. If: fat x 100 < fatLIMIT % 

FFM + fat 

Where: FatLIMIT % = Limit for fat provided by the EU Definition. 

Declarable meat content = FFM + fat 

b. If: fat x 100 > fatLIMIT 

FFM + fat 

Declarable meat content = FFM x100 

(100 – fatLIMIT) 

Step8 Calculate excess fat 

Excess fat = total fat – ( declarable meat content – fat free meat) 

Details of the nitrogen factors used in the above calculations can be found in the following 

references: 

Nitrogen Factors for Pork: A Reassessment, The Analyst, July, 1991, No. 7, pp. 761-766 

Nitrogen Factors for Beef: A Reassessment, The Analyst, September, 1993, Vol. 118, pp. 1217-1225 

Nitrogen Factors for Sheepmeat, Part 1 Mutton The Analyst, June, 1995, Vol. 120, pp. 1823-1824 

Nitrogen Factors for Sheepmeat, Part 2 Lamb Meat, The Analyst, July, 1996, Vol. 121, pp. 889-896 

Nitrogen Factors for Chicken Meat, The Analyst, 2000, June, Vol. 125, pp. 1359-1366 

Nitrogen Factors for Turkey Meat, The Analyst, 2002, April, Vol. 127, pp. 859-869 

22

CALCULATION OF ANALYTICAL UNCERTAINTY ANNEX 5 

a. The CLITRAVI Method 

14. The analytical uncertainty in determining the fat, nitrogen and hydroxyproline levels 

of the meat ingredients before using the CLITRAVI calculation has been determined as 

follows (using data from The Analyst, July, 1991, No. 7, pp. 761-766): 

Relative standard uncertainty of nitrogen determination (standard U/Value) 

= 0.022 (using V= 2.88 N) 

Relative standard uncertainty of hydroxyproline determination (standard U/V) 

= 0.035 (using V = 0.162 Hyp) 

Standard uncertainty for total fat = 0.4 (Using V = 20% fat) 

In the calculation of connecting tissue by the CLITRAVI method: 

% Connective tissue = (collagen ÷ protein) x 100 

= (hydroxyproline x 8 ÷ nitrogen x 6.25) x 100 

Combined uncertainty for connective tissue = √ (0.022) 2 + (0.035) 2 

= √ (.001709) = .04134 

Uncertainty for total meat = total defatted meat + fat content 

Assuming a defatted meat content of 70% and total fat content of 20% 

Combined uncertainty for total meat (for total meat content around 80%) 

= √(70 x .04134) 2 + (0.4) 2 = √ (8.53) = 2.92 

Taking the uncertainty at the 95% confidence level as 2x combined uncertainty for the total 

meat calculation = 2 x 2.92 = 6% 

15. Therefore for meat contents up to 90%, a total uncertainty of ±6% meat content 

would be acceptable to take into account methodology uncertainty for fat, protein and 

hydroxyproline determination using CLITRAVI calculation. 

b. Stubbs and More Calculation 

16. The analytical uncertainty is calculated similarly to CLITRAVI. However there are 

more analyses and a possible increased uncertainty by the use of a nitrogen factor to 

calculate fat free meat. 

Relative standard uncertainty of nitrogen factor (NF Standard U/V) = 0.023 (using NF V = 

3.50 for pork calculated from AMC Analyst 1991 Vol 116, pp761-66). 

23

Combined relative standard uncertainty for connective tissue = 0.04134 

Combined relative standard uncertainty for defatted meat content 

= √ (.04134) 2 + (0.023) 2 = √ (0.002238) = .0473 

Assuming a defatted pork content of 70% and total fat content of 20% 

Combined standard uncertainty for total meat (for total meat content around 80%) 

= √(70 x .0473) 2 + (0.4) 2 = √ (11.12) = 3.33 

Taking the uncertainty at the 95% confidence level as 2 x combined uncertainty for the 

total meat calculation = 2 x 3.33 = 6.7% = 7% 

17. Therefore for meat contents up to 90%, a total uncertainty of 7% meat content 

would be acceptable to take into account uncertainty for fat, protein, and hydroxyproline 

determination, the use of a nitrogen factor (pork) using the modified Stubbs and More 

approach. Note that the relative standard uncertainty for beef nitrogen factor is smaller 

(0.014), hence the use of an uncertainty of 7% would still be appropriate. 

24

RESULTS OF MEAT CONTENT CALCULATIONS ANNEX 6 

FSA 

code 

Name of outlet Full Description of 

Product 

AB001 A & F Welsh 

Butcher 

AB002 C 

Butcher 

Lingard 

AB003 J & G Collie 

AB004 

Butcher 

Davidsons 

Butchers 

Beef Burgers 

(unwrapped) 

Beef Sausages 

(Unwrapped) 

Pork Sausages 

(unwrapped) 

Beef Sausages 

(unwrapped) 

QUID displayed FSA Method CLITRAVI 

Method 

Stubbs & 

More Method 

Estimated 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Beef 70% Beef 61% Beef 78% Beef 82% Beef 70 vl Beef 95 vl 


Pork 65% Pork 73% Pork 82% Pork 82% Pork 70 vl Pork 90 vl 


AB005 Ritchie Butchers Steak Burger Beef 88% Beef 88% Beef 88% Beef 89% Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

AB006 West End Aberdeen Angus Not provided Beef 56% Beef 71% Beef 67% Beef 70 vl Beef 95 vl 

Butchers Burgers 

AB007 Ewan 

Butcher 

Morrice Pork & Apple Burger Pork 60% Pork 78% Pork 78% Pork 82% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

AB008 Glenbervie Premium Specially Beef 85% Beef 86% Beef 86% Beef 87% Beef 75 vl Beef 85 vl 

Aberdeen Angus selected Scotch 

AC001 Laidlaw Butchers 

Steak Burgers 

Steak Sausages Beef 64% Beef 74% Beef 85% Beef 71% Beef 75 vl Beef 85 vl 

AC002 T Strachan Honey and Roast Pork 76% Pork 72% Pork 72% Pork 72% Pork 80 vl Pork 85 vl 

AC003 T Strachan 

Pork Sausages 

Steak Sausages Beef 61% Beef 52% Beef 60% Beef 50% Beef 75 vl Beef 85 vl 

AC004 T Strachan Pork Sausages Pork 69% Pork 44% Pork 67% Pork 66% Pork 50 vl Pork 85 vl 

AC005 T Strachan Steak Burgers Beef 84% Beef 90% Beef 90% Beef 91% Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

AC006 Mc William Pork & Beef Sausage Pork 35%, Beef Pork 46%, Pork 45%, Mixed Pork 80 vl, Pork 75 vl, 

(Aberdeen) 

27% 

Beef 31% Beef 35% species Beef 75 vl Beef 80 vl 

AC007 H & S Milne & Beef Sausage 

sons 


BH004 Fakir Halal Halal Doner Kebab Lamb 50%, Lamb 54%, Lamb 52%, Mixed Not 

Lamb 90 vl, 

Chicken 8% Chicken 13% Chicken species provided Chicken 60 

10% 

vl 

BH005 Fakir Halal Superior 

Burgers 

Halal Beef 75% Beef 72% Beef 72% Beef 85% Beef 95 vl Beef 95 vl 

25

FSA 

code 


Product 

BH006 T & T Foods Halal Lamb & Beef 

Doner 

BH007 T & T Foods Halal Jumbo Beef & 

Chicken Sausages 


Method 

Lamb 35%, Beef 

35% 

Beef 27%, Chicken 

9% 

Lamb 32%, 

Beef 34%, 

Chicken 4% 

Beef 28%, 

Chicken 6% 

Lamb 27%, 

Beef 34%, 

Chicken 

5% 

Beef 35%, 

Chicken 

8% 

Stubbs & 

More Method 

Mixed 

species 

Mixed 

species 

BH008 R & J Maund Pork Sausage Pork 65% Pork 60% Pork 60% Pork 61% Not 

BL001 Middlesex Meat Cumberland 

Sausage 

Pork 

BL002 Bighams Aberdeen 

steakburger 

angus 

Estimated 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Not 

provided 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Lamb 60 vl, 

Beef 85 vl, 

Chicken 90 

vl 

Beef 70 vl Beef 70 vl, 

Chicken 85 

vl 

Pork 85 vl 

provided 



BL003 Kelmans Beef Sausage Beef 70% Beef 65% Beef 69% Beef 50% Beef 80 vl Beef 100 vl 

BL004 Hermolis Beef Burger Beef 34% Beef 29% Beef 30% Beef 36% Beef 85 vl Beef 95 vl 

BL005 Tiffin Bites Lamb Sheesh Kebab Lamb 88% Lamb 90% Lamb 90% Lamb 111% Lamb 85 vl Lamb 85 vl 

BL006 Gordon Lane & 

sons 

BP001 Steve 

Butchers 

Hope 

BP002 Steve 

Butchers 

Hope 

Cumberland 

Sausages 

Steves Famous Pork 

Sausage 

Specially Selected 

Scotch Beef Steak 

Burger 

BP003 I H Daniel Shop Made Beef 

Burgers 

BP004 I H Daniel Shop Made Lamb 

Burgers/triangles 

BP005 Choice 

Catering 

Meats 

BP006 Taylors 

Cleveleys 

of 

BP007 Whitegate 

Quality Meats 





Lamb 60% Lamb 67% Lamb 80% Lamb 77% Lamb 70 vl Lamb 95 vl 

Homemade 

Sausage 

Pork Pork 60% Pork 63% Pork 70% Pork 73% Pork 70 vl Pork 85 vl 

Pork Pie Pork 16% Pork 22% Pork 22% Pork 23% Pork 80 vl Pork 95 vl 

Traditional 

Cumberland 

Sausage 

Meat 65% Pork 45% Pork 67% Pork 81% Pork 50 vl Pork 75 vl 

26

FSA Name of outlet Full Description of QUID displayed FSA Method CLITRAVI Stubbs & Estimated Analytical 

code 

Product 

Method More Method VL of meat VL of meat 

ingredient(s) ingredient(s) 

BP008 Whitegate Thick Pork Sausage Meat 65% Pork 35%, Pork 59%, Mixed Pork 50 vl, Pork 80 vl, 

Quality Meat 

Lamb 5% Lamb 9% species Lamb 50 vl Lamb 85 vl 

BU001 Godden 

Country Pork Pork 75% Pork 79% Pork 79% Pork 75% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

Butchers Sausages 

BU002 Tilbury Butchers Pork 

Sausage 

Champion Pork 77% Pork 70% Pork 77% Pork 74% Pork 70 vl Pork 95 vl 

BU003 Keith 

Butchers 

Hill Beef Burgers Beef 70% Beef 80% Beef 83% Beef 92% Beef 80 vl Beef 95 vl 

BU004 Keith 

Butchers 

Hill Pork Sausages Pork 70% Pork 80% Pork 80% Pork 84% Pork 75 vl Pork 95 vl 

BU006 Mr Parminter & 

Sons 

Beef Burgers Not provided Beef 96% Beef 96% Beef 89% Beef 85 vl Beef 95 vl 

BU007 Longhursts Pork Sausages Pork 75% Pork 69% Pork 69% Pork 66% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

BU008 Longhursts Home 

Burgers 

Made Beef Beef 75% Beef 83% Beef 83% Beef 84% Beef 90 vl Beef 100 vl 

CU001 Castletown Farm 

Shop 

Pork Sausage Pork 60% Pork 68% Pork 68% Pork 73% Pork 80 vl Pork 100 vl 

CU003 Wils Hambling Beef Burgers Beef 76% Beef 69% Beef 71% Beef 73% Beef 80 vl Beef 90 vl 

CU004 Brysons 

Keswick 

of Pork Pie Pork 20% Pork 26% Pork 27% Pork 26% Pork 80 vl Pork 95 vl 

CU005 Haighs of Cumberland 

Pork 90% Pork 94% Pork 94% Pork 92% Pork 75-80 Pork 95 vl 

Workington Sausage 

vl 

CU006 Plumbgarths Old English Pork Pork 70% Pork 53% Pork 68% Pork 74% Pork 70 vl Pork 100 vl 

Farm Shop Sausage 

CU007 Cumbrian 

Fellbred 

Products 


CU008 Higginsons Home Made Steak 

Burgers 


DU001 J Loughlin & Honey Roast Pork Pork 62%, Beef 9% Pork 61%, Pork 61%, Mixed Pork 80 vl, Pork 100 vl, 

sons 

Sausages 


DU002 J Loughlin & Steak Burgers Beef 80% Beef 81% Beef 81% Beef 102% Beef 80 vl Beef 95 vl 

Sons 

27


code 

Product 



DU003 Broom Mill Farm All Day Breakfast Pork 78% Pork 72% Pork 72% Pork 76% Pork 80 vl Pork 95 vl 

Co Durham Pork Sausages 

DU004 Meat Express Co Halal Doner Kebab Meat 90% Lamb 41%, Lamb 49%, Mixed Lamb 65 vl, Lamb 80 vl, 

Durham 

Beef 31% Beef 34% species Beef 70 vl, Beef 70 vl, 

Mutton 70 vl Mutton 70 vl 

DU005 Mattisons Bakery Pork Pie Pork 30% Pork 27% Pork 35% Pork 34% Pork 60 vl Pork 80 vl 

DU006 H Coates & Son Large Pork Pie Pork 20% Pork 34% Pork 38% Pork 42% Pork 70 vl Pork 95 vl 

DU007 Dropswell Farm 

Shop Trimdon 

Beef Burger Beef 85% Beef 83% Beef 83% Beef 86% Beef 80 vl Beef 95 vl 

DU008 Istanbul Meats Lamb and Beef Lamb 63%, Beef Lamb 45%, Lamb 53%, Mixed Lamb 75 vl, Lamb 80 vl, 

Kebab 

13%, Chicken 2% Beef 23%, Beef 26%, species Beef 70 vl, Beef 75 vl, 

Chicken 4% Chicken 

Chicken 90 Chicken 95 

4% 

vl 

vl 

FL001 Wynne Williams 

Flint 

Traditional Pork 

Sausage 

FL002 Chris Perrins Lamb & Mint 

Sausage Min. 65% 

meat 

FL003 S Vaughan Pork 

Sausage 

& Chive 

Pork 60% Pork 60% Pork 67% Pork79% Pork 70 vl Pork 85 vl 

Lamb 65% Lamb 68% Lamb 68% Lamb 68% Lamb Ing 1 

60 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 90 vl 

Pork 65% Pork 64% Pork 72% Pork 77% Pork Ing 1 

50 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 80 vl 

Lamb Ing 1 

70 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 95 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

80 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 95 vl 

FL004 Harry's Pies Pork Pie Pork 25% Pork 23% Pork 23% Pork 34% Pork 90 vl Pork 90 vl 

FL005 S & C Muff Pork 

Sausage 

& Chive Pork 69% Pork 61% Pork 65% Pork 71% Pork 85 vl Pork 90 vl 

FL006 Hewitts 

Foods 

Fine Pork Pie Pork 21% Pork 26% Pork 31% Pork 37% Pork 80 vl Pork 85 vl 

FL007 Swans 

Shop 

Farm Beef Burger Beef 92% Beef 92% Beef 92% Beef 88% Beef 96 vl Beef 100 vl 

GL001 Ensors 

Pork Sausage Pork 43% Pork 60% Pork 61% Pork 71% Pork 90-95 Pork 90 vl 

Gloucestershire 

vl 

GL002 Ensors 

Pork and Leek Pork 43% Pork 56% Pork 60% Pork 66% Pork 90-95 Pork 90 vl 

Gloucestershire Sausage 

vl 

GL003 Ensors 



28

FSA 

code 


Product 

GL004 Ensors 


GL005 Ensors 


LI001 George Adams 

Pork Products 


Method 

Stubbs & 

More Method 

Estimated 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Pork Burgers Pork 43% Pork 60% Pork 64% Pork 73% Pork 90-95 

vl 

Pork 90 vl 

Lamb 

Burger 

and Mint Lamb 75% Lamb 78% Lamb 78% Lamb 93% Lamb 90 vl Lamb 90 vl 

Adams Lincolnshire 

Sausages 

LI002 George Adams 

LI003 

Pork Products 

Parkinsons 

Gedney 

of 

LI004 Lakings of Louth Lincolnshire 

Sausage 

Pork 


90 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90 vl, 

Pork Ing 3 

50 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

100 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 100 vl, 

Pork Ing 3 

85 vl 

Pork Pie Pork 27% Pork 18% Pork 24% Pork 36% Pork 50 vl Pork 85 vl 

Lincolnshire Sausage Pork 80% Pork 85% Pork 85% Pork 83% Pork 80 vl Pork 90 vl 


70 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 95 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

90 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 100 vl 

LI005 A W Garrill Lincolnshire Sausage Pork 67% Pork 68% Pork 68% Pork 63% Pork 80 vl Pork 100 vl 

LI006 AW Curtis & Farmhouse Style Pork 70% Pork 68% Pork 71% Pork 73% Pork 80 vl Pork 95 vl 

Sons 

Pork Sausage 

LI007 AW 

Sons 

Curtis & 10 oz. Pork Pie Pork 22% Pork 25% Pork 30% Pork 27% Pork 80 vl Pork 100 vl 

LR001 Walkers Midshire Cumberland 

Pork 82% Pork 76% Pork 83% Pork 86% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 


Chipolata 

90 vl, Pork 90-95 vl, 

Ing 2 50 vl Pork Ing 2 

75 vl 

LR002 Walkers 

Charnwood 

Bakery 

Mini Melton Mowbray 

Pork Pie 


85 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 65 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

95 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90 vl 

MK001 SBZ Foods Bratwurst Pork 53% Pork 52% Pork 67% Pork 91% Pork 50 vl Pork 80 vl 

MK002 SBZ Foods Sliced Cooked 

Lincolnshire Sausage 

MK003 Gilberts Kosher 

Food 


80 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 50 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

90 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 80 vl 

Cocktail Vienna Beef 70% Beef 50% Beef 65% Beef 85% Beef 90 vl Beef 95 vl 

29

FSA 

code 


Product 

MK004 Mr G Windows 

t/a GJ Douglas 

MK006 Woburn Country 


MK007 Woburn Country 



Method 

Stubbs & 

More Method 

Estimated 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 


Breakfast Pork 

Sausage 

Apricot Apple and 

Ginger Sausage 


65 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90 vl 


65 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

70 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 100 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

85 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 100 vl 

NI001 Coffeys Butchers Pork Sausage Pork 65% Pork 66% Pork 74% Pork 68% Pork 70 vl Pork 85 vl 

NI002 Belfast Meats Pork 

Sausage 

& Leek Pork 42% Pork 46% Pork 65% Pork 55% Pork 66 vl Pork 95 vl 

NI003 Graham 

Ferguson 

Steak Burger Meat 95% Meat 98% Meat 98% Meat 97% Beef 95 vl Beef 95 vl 

NI004 Gibsons 

Pork Sausage Meat 65% Meat 73% Meat 81% Meat 70% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Butchers 

80 vl, Pork 100 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 60 vl Ing 2 90 vl 

NI006 McWhinneys Premium Sausage Pork 70% Pork 56% Pork 77% Pork 81% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Bangor Co. (Pork) 


Down 

Ing 2 70 vl, Ing 2 90 vl, 

Pork Ing 3 Pork Ing 3 

20 vl 75 vl 

NI007 S.M Meats Ltd 

Co Down 

NI008 S.M Meats Ltd 

Co Down 

NI009 Crossgar Meats Seasoned Minced 

Steak Burger 

NI010 Finnebrogue 

Venison 

Traditional 

Sausage 

Beef Beef 52% Beef 65% Beef 80% Beef 77% Beef 70 vl Beef 80 vl 

Steak Burger Beef 95% Beef 98% Beef 98% Beef 98% Beef 95 vl Beef 95 vl 


Oisin Venison Burger Venison 94% Venison 94% Venison 

94% 

Venison 

100% 

Not 

provided 

NI011 Doherty & Gray Irish Pork Sausage Pork 85% Pork 78% Pork 85% Pork 87% Pork Ing 1 

80 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90 vl 

30 

Venison 95 

vl 

Pork Ing 1 

95 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 95 vl


code 

Product 



NI012 McAtamneys Award Winning Beef 85% Beef 91% Beef 91% Beef 89% Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

Butchers Quarter Pounder 

Steak Burger 

NI013 McAtamnays Honey Roast Pork Pork 65% Pork 61% Pork 73% Pork 72% Pork 65 vl Pork 90 vl 

Butchers Sausage 

NI014 Sunnylands Traditional Pork Pork 64% Pork 74% Pork 74% Pork 76% Pork 80 vl Pork 95 vl 

Meat Centre Sausage 

NI015 D Watt Steak Burger Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 98% Beef 85 vl Beef 100 vl 

NI016 Armagh Bacon Pork Sausage Pork 51% Pork 46% Pork 66% Pork 68% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Agency 


Ing 2 60 vl, Ing 2 60 vl, 

Pork Ing 3 Pork Ing 3 

50 vl 80 vl 

NI018 Moyallon Foods Pork 

Sausage 

& Herb Pork 67% Pork 68% Pork 68% Pork 68% Pork 95 vl Pork 100 vl 

NI019 R M Neill Beef Burger Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 77% Beef 85 vl Beef 95 vl 

NI020 

Butcher 

William Baird Pork 'n' Apple Burger Pork 86% Pork 85% Pork 85% Pork 84% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

NI021 Mitchell Meats Beef Sausage Beef 66% Beef 72% Beef 76% Beef 72% Not 

provided 

Beef 100 vl 

NI022 Pauls Butchers Steak Burger Beef 80% Beef 98% Beef 98% Beef 95% Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

NI023 Dromore Meats Steak Burger Beef 80% Beef 98% Beef 98% Beef 94% Beef 85 vl Beef 100 vl 

NI024 Kerry Foods Thick Pork Sausage Not provided Pork 54% Pork 58% Pork 62% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



NI025 Culbertson Spar Honeybee Pork Pork 65% Pork 84% Pork 84% Pork 95% Pork 80 vl Pork 100 vl 

Foodliner Sausage 

NK001 Archers of Norfolk Pork Pork 58% Pork 79% Pork 86% Pork 86% Pork 85-90 Pork 85 vl 

Norwich 

Sausage 

vl 

NK002 Archers of American Burger Beef 60% Beef 81% Beef 94% Beef 100% Beef Ing 1 Beef Ing 1 

Norwich 

80 vl, Beef 70 vl, Beef 

Ing 2 50-60 

vl 

Ing 2 100 vl 

NK003 T C Fines & sons Scottish Style Lorne 

Sausage 


31

FSA 

code 


Product 


Method 

Stubbs & 

More Method 

Estimated 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

NK004 F Spurgeon Pork Sausage Pork 65% Pork 71% Pork 76% Pork 82% Pork 70 vl Pork 75 vl 

NK005 Tavern Tasty 

Meats 

NK006 Tavern 

Meats 

Tasty 

NK007 Tavern 

Meats 

Tasty 

PB001 Yerbeston Gate 

Farm Shop 

Norfolk Pork Pie Not provided Meat 48% Meat 50% Meat 55% Pork Ing 1 

70 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90-95 

English 

Sausage 

Breakfast 

Pork & Apple 

Steakburger - Gluten 

Free 

Traditional 

Sausage 

Pork 

Pork Ing 1 

85 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 100 vl 

Pork 85% Pork 70% Pork 78% Pork 85% 

vl 

Pork 70 vl Pork 85 vl 



PB002 Preseli Gold Traditional 

Sausage 

Pork Pork 70% Pork 73% Pork 73% Pork 77% Pork 90 vl Pork 95 vl 

PB003 Preseli Gold Pork & Apple Grill Pork 70% Pork 80% Pork 80% Pork 84% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

PB004 Bethseda Fresh 

Farm Meats 

PB005 Bethseda Fresh 

Farm Meats 

PB006 G 

Butchers 

Davies 

PO001 Welsh Sausage 

Company 

PO002 Welsh Sausage 

Company 

PO003 L V Meats Pork Sausage (42% 

Pork content) 

PO004 FJ 

sons 

Layton & 

PO005 Burger 

Manufacturing 

Co. 

Garlic & Herb Pork Pork 68% 

Sausage 

Pork 70% Pork 70% Pork 71% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

Pork & Apple Burger Pork 80% Pork 83% Pork 83% Pork 83% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

Pork Chipolata Pork 75% Pork 70% Pork 70% Pork 75% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



Pork 

Sausage 

& Leek Pork 65% Pork 68% Pork 68% Pork 68% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 



Welsh Black Beef Beef 60% Beef 76% Beef 73% Beef 64% Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

Sausage 

Steak Burger Beef 99% Beef 99% Beef 99% Beef 94% Beef Ing 1 

95 vl 

Beef 100 vl 

32


code 

Product 



PO006 Burger 

Superior Beef Burger Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 77% Beef 92% Beef Ing 1 Beef Ing 1 

Manufacturing 

85 vl, Beef 85 vl, Beef 

co. 


PO007 Welsh Venison Traditional Pork Not provided Pork 71% Pork 71% Pork 73% Pork 80 vl Pork 95 vl 

Centre 

Sausage 

PO008 Welsh Venison Original Venison Venison 69% Pork Venison 74% Venison Mixed Pork 80 vl Venison 90 

Centre 

Sausage 

10% 

Pork 14% 74% Pork species 

vl, Pork 100 

14% 

vl 

RH001 Mid Glam Meats Pork Sausage Pork 44% Pork 54% Pork 67% Pork 70% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



RH002 Mid Glam Meats Pork & Beef Sausage Pork 28%, Beef 5% Pork 36%, Pork 48%, Mixed Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Beef 8% Beef 8% species 95 vl, Pork 95 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 50 vl, Ing 2 50 vl, 

Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

RH003 W Tudor Pork Sausage Pork 67% Pork 67% Pork 67% Pork 69% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

RH004 KJS Quality Beef Burger Not provided Beef 88% Beef 88% Beef 91% Beef 90 vl Beef 95 vl 

Meats Butchers 

RH005 Bevans 

Meat 

Quality Beef Burger Beef 75% Beef 85% Beef 84% Beef 93% Beef 85 vl Beef 85 vl 

RH006 N Margery Beef Sausage Beef 62% Beef 69% Beef 69% Beef 76% Beef 90 vl Beef 100 vl 

RH007 N Margery Pork Sausage Pork 69% Pork 73% Pork 73% Pork 74% Pork 90 vl Pork 100 vl 

RH008 Winnie's the Beef Burger Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 80% Beef 78% Beef 95 vl Beef 100 vl 

SF001 

Market Butcher 

Wootton Organic 

Wholesale 

Organic Beef Burger Beef 80% Beef 81% Beef 81% Beef 83% Beef 85 vl Beef 100 vl 

SF002 Wootton Organic Organic Pork & Leek Beef 70% Beef 75% Beef 76% Beef 83% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Wholesale Sausage minced & 


shaped pork 


SF003 Lower Hurst Organic Quarter Beef 96% Beef 94% Beef 94% Beef 94% Not 

Beef 100 vl 

Farm 

Pounder Beef Burger 

provided 

SF004 Tennant Craft 1lb Pork Pie Pork 25% Pork 24% Pork 26% Pork 32% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Bakery 



33

FSA 

code 


Product 

SF005 Velis Donner 

Kebabs 

SF006 Velis Donner 

Kebabs 

QUID displayed FSA Method CLITRAVI Stubbs & Estimated 

Method More Method VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Lamb Salt Kebab Lamb 65% Lamb 80% Lamb 71% Lamb 88% Lamb Ing 1 

80 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 80 vl, 

Lamb Ing 3 

80 vl, Lamb 

Ing 4 80 vl 

Beef & Lamb Kebab Beef 41%, Lamb 

21% 

SF007 K Boxley Gold Medal Pork 

Sausage - 66.3% 

Pork - 

Beef 47%, 

Lamb 31% 

Beef 47%, 

Lamb 26% 

Mixed 

species 

Beef Ing 1 

75 vl, Beef 

Ing 2 95 vl, 

Lamb Ing 1 

80 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 80 vl, 

Lamb Ing 3 

80 vl 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Lamb Ing 1 

90 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 60 vl, 

Lamb Ing 3 

70 vl, Lamb 

Ing 4 80 vl 

Beef Ing 1 

100 vl, Beef 

Ing 2 100 vl, 

Lamb Ing 1 

75 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 80 vl, 

Lamb Ing 3 

60 vl 


SF008 K Boxley Beef Burger Beef 70% Beef 86% Beef 88% No analysis 

on the final 

product 

Beef Ing 1 

75 vl, Beef 

Ing 2 85 vl 

SH001 Beres & Son Pork Pie Pork 30% Pork 24% Pork 32% Pork 34% Pork Ing 1 

95, Pork Ing 

2 50 vl 

Beef Ing 1 

95 vl, Beef 

Ing 2 95 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

100 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 80 vl 

SH002 J W Crawshaw Steak Pie Beef 25% Beef 39% Beef 39% Beef 56% Beef 80 vl Beef 100 vl 

SH003 J W Crawshaw Sausage Roll Pork 13% Pork 18% Pork 23% Pork 14% Pork 65 vl Pork 80 vl 

SH004 Real 

Company 

Meat Pork & Apple Burger Pork 86% Pork 87% Pork 87% Pork 81% Pork 90 vl Pork 95 vl 

SH005 Real Meat Classic Pork Pork 85% Pork 85% Pork 85% Pork 89% Pork 90 vl Pork 95 vl 

Company Sausage 

SH006 Heather Hills Pork Sausage Pork 65% Pork 80% Pork 80% Pork 81% Pork 85 vl Pork 95 vl 

SK001 

Farm Meats 

K E Hutson Pork Sausage Meat Pork 80% Pork 77% Pork 77% Pork 80% Pork 80 vl Pork 85 vl 

SK002 Stebbings Traditional Pork Pork 80% Pork 69% Pork 69% Pork 69% Pork 80 vl Pork 100 vl 

Butchers Sausage 

34


code 

Product 



SK003 A E Hall & Sons Beef Burger Beef 80% Beef 67% Beef 85% Beef 100% Beef 70 vl Beef 85 vl 

SK004 K W Clarke Pork & Apple Burger Pork 80% Pork 78% Pork 87% Pork 95% Pork 70 vl Pork 90 vl 

SK005 Kevin Allens Beef Burger Beef 90% Beef 76% Beef 97% No analysis Beef 70 vl Beef 95 vl 

Butchers 

on the final 

product 

SK006 Kevin 

Butchers 

Allens Pork Sausage Pork 80% Pork 80% Pork 89% Pork 92% Pork 70 vl Pork 95 vl 

SK007 C K Meats Beef Burger Beef 85% Beef 85% Beef 85% No analysis Beef 85 vl Beef 85 vl 

SK008 C K Meats Catering Sausage Pork 50% Pork 50% Pork 50% 

on the final 

product 

Pork 53% Pork 80 vl Pork 90 vl 

ST001 Martin Blackwell Pork Sausage Pork 76% Pork 72% Pork 75% Pork 81% Pork 75 vl Pork 95 vl 

ST002 Martin Blackwell Pork Pie Pork 35% Pork 26% Pork 27% Pork 27% Pork 75 vl Pork 85-90 

vl 

ST003 Dennis Pawley Pork Sausage Pork 70% Pork 67% Pork 70% Pork 71% Pork 75 vl Pork 100 vl 

ST004 Dennis Pawley Pork & Beef Sausage Meat 70% Pork 40%, Pork 40%, Mixed Pork 85 vl, Pork 100 vl, 


ST005 Meatzone UK Lamb & Beef Kebab Meat 90% Lamb 64%, Lamb 64%, Mixed Lamb 80 vl, Mixed meat 

Beef 13% Beef 13% species Beef 80 vl 70 vl 

ST006 Cleavers Pork Sausage Pork 70% Pork 78% Pork 78% Pork 73% Pork 85 vl Pork 95 vl 

ST007 Michael Plant Pork Pie Pork 20% Pork 45% Pork 46% Pork 43% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



ST008 Michael Plant Pork Sausage Pork 45% Pork 53% Pork 56% Pork 54% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



SU001 Ace 4 Kebabs Lamb Kebab Lamb 75% Lamb 41% Lamb 64% Lamb 92% Lamb Ing 1 Lamb Ing 1 

20 vl, Lamb 50 vl, Lamb 

Ing 2 50 vl, Ing 2 80 vl, 

Lamb Ing 3 Lamb Ing 3 

80 vl, Lamb 80 vl, Lamb 


SU002 Ace 4 Kebabs Lamb & Beef Kebab Lamb 43%, Beef 

29% 

35 

Lamb 47%, 

Beef 38% 

Lamb 47%, 

Beef 38% 

Mixed 

species 

Lamb 85 vl, 

Beef 85 vl 

Lamb 85 vl, 

Beef 85 vl

FSA 

code 


Product 

SU003 White Lodge Pork & Garlic 

Farm 

Sausage 

SU004 White Lodge Pork & Apple 

Farm 

Sausage 

SU005 Reg Guyett Cumberland 

Sausage 

Pork 

SU006 Mortimers Home Made Plain 

Butchers Pork Sausage 

SU007 Mortimers Home Made Pork & 

Butchers Venison Sausage 

QUID displayed FSA Method CLITRAVI Stubbs & Estimated Analytical 



Pork 78% Pork 79% Pork 79% Pork 83% Not 

provided 

Pork 95 vl 


provided 

Pork 95 vl 


provided 

Pork 70 vl 


Pork 36%, Venison 

26% 

Pork 38%, 

Venison 38% 

Pork 38%, 

Venison 

38% 

Mixed 

species 

Pork 85 vl, 

Venison 95 

vl 

Pork 95 vl, 

Venison 

100 vl 

WL001 Alex Speedie Chip Steak Beef 91% Beef 91% Beef 95% Beef 91% Beef 80 vl Beef 95 vl 

WL002 Hugh Black and 

Sons 


WL003 James Black and 

Son 


WL004 John Dewar and 

Son 


WL005 J. Lawson Beef Burger Beef 76% Beef 71% Beef 91% Beef 96% Beef 70 vl Beef 95 vl 

WL006 Campbells Prime Steak & Parsley Beef 85% Beef 89% Beef 89% Beef 84% Beef 98 vl Beef 95 vl 

Meat Ltd Burgers 

WL007 J Livingston and 

Sons 


WL008 Boghall Butchers 

West Lothian 


WS001 Coopers Family Best Pork Sausage Pork 42% Pork 69% Pork 72% Pork 77% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 

Butchers 

80 vl, Pork 85-90 vl, 

Ing 2 50 vl Pork Ing 2 

70 vl 

WS002 Conways Beef Burger Beef 62% Beef 74% Beef 78% Beef 82% Beef 80 vl Beef 90 vl 

WS003 Lawrence Meats Popular Catering 

Sausage 

Pork 34%, Beef 

10% 

36 

Pork 38%, 

Beef 4% 

Pork 38%, 

Beef 10% 

Mixed 

species 

Pork Ing 1 

95 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 50 vl 

Pork Ing 1 

95 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 70 vl

FSA 

code 


Product 


Method 

Stubbs & 

More Method 

Estimated 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

WS004 Lawrence Meats Pork Sausage Pork 54% Pork 57% Pork 68% Pork 59% Pork Ing 1 

50 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 50 vl, 

Pork Ing 3 

95 vl 

WS005 Euro Kebabs Donner Kebab Lamb meat 70% 

Lamb fat 15% 

mutton 5% 

Lamb 89% Lamb 86% Lamb 52% Not 

provided 

Analytical 

VL of meat 

ingredient(s) 

Pork Ing 1 

65 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 75 vl, 

Pork Ing 3 

90 vl 

Lamb 90 vl 

WS006 TC Morris Medium Pork Pie Pork 30% Pork 27% Pork 27% Pork 28% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



WS007 Pat Gorman Small Pork Pie Pork 46% Pork 37% Pork 45% Pork 36% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



WS008 Pat Gorman Large Pork Pie Pork 46% Pork 37% Pork 44% Pork 40% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



WY001 Farmers Boy Thick Pork Sausage Pork 56% Pork 57% Pork 65% Pork 67% Pork Ing 1 Pork Ing 1 



WY002 Farmers Boy Quarter 

Beef Burger 

Pounder Beef 84% Beef 82% Beef 86% Beef 85% Beef 80 vl Beef 100 vl 

WY003 Farmers Boy Pork Pie Pork 20% Pork 21% Pork 22% Pork 25% Pork Ing 1 

80 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 50 vl 

37 

Pork Ing 1 

85 vl, Pork 

Ing 2 90 vl

(/05) DECEMBER 2005 DRAFT 1 - Food Standards Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?